- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELZE, A. D. 2012

CLAIM NO. 531

(SANDRA BERGQUIST CLAIMANTS

(PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN NO. 22 LTD.

BETWEEN (AND

(MICHAEL SLUSSER DEFENDANT

-----

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE MICHELLE ARANA

Mr. Said Musa, S. C., of Musa and Balderamos for the Claimants

Ms. Sharon Pitts of Pitts and Elrington for the Defendant

-----

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a claim for the sum of $139,800 BZ as arrears of maintenance fees

that the Claimants allege were agreed to be paid at the rate of $300 per

month per unit from November 1st, 2005 to September 1st, 2012. The

Claimants also seek $3000 as fixed costs and $225 as court and process fees

together with interest from the due date at the rate agreed at 12% per

annum.

- 2 -

2. The Defendant has counterclaimed as against the Claimants for payment of

the sum of $858,337.90 BZ as past maintenance fees he alleges are due

under bylaws dated October 10th, 2003.

The Facts

3. The following facts are those agreed to between the parties in their Agreed

Statement of Facts and Issues dated 26th March, 2014:

i. The Claimants and Defendants are the owners of the Perla Escondida

Condominiums set out in Strata Plan #22 situated as Block 7 Parcel ID 42-

433 in San Pedro Ambergris Caye, Belize District.

ii. The Strata Plan #22 was registered by Jack Embry of Grantwell Ltd., the

builders of the said condos, on the 11th February, 2003.

iii. The Defendant on or about the 27th November, 2003 purchased five of

the condo units from Jack Embry. He then formed a company - Perla

Escondida Condominium Ltd. - with him and his wife as shareholders and

with the apparent agreement of Jack Embry assumed control and

management of the condo complex.

iv. The Claimants contend that as part of the by-laws it was agreed that all

proprietors of the condo units would contribute a monthly maintenance

fee of $300 per unit. The Defendant does not agree on this point.

v. Between November 2003 and November 2005 the Defendant had control

of the Administration of the condo complex in Strata Plan #22 and

collected maintenance fees from all the proprietors.

vi. During this period there was growing dissatisfaction with the

administration and maintenance of the condo units and the common

area.

vii. The Claimants contend that at a general meeting of the proprietors held

on or about the 12th November, 2005 a vote was taken to appoint a new

executive committee of the proprietors to be in charge of the

- 3 -

administration and management of the condo complex. Seventeen of the

twenty two unit holders voted to oust the Defendant and his company

from the control and management of the condo complex. The Defendant

however maintains that there was no proper meeting.

viii. Since that time (November 2005) the Defendant has refused to pay any

maintenance fees for any of his units and there have been a series of law

suits in his attempts to gain back control without success, according to

the Claimants. The Defendant, however, denies this and says that there

have been no prior law suits in the parties’ attempt to resolve this

matter.

ix. Sometime in the year 2010, the Defendant secured title from Jack Embry

for an additional four units. He has still refused to pay maintenance fees

for any of his now nine units.

x. The Claimants claim is for arrears of maintenance fees owed by the

Defendant since November 2005 to the present time.

xi. The Defendants counter claim is for maintenance fees and loss of profits

on the basis that he is still the legitimate person in charge of the condos

complex comprised in Strata Plan #22.

The Issues

4. Are the Claimants entitled to the sums claimed as unpaid maintenance

fees, or is the Defendant entitled to the sums he claims as maintenance

fees/loss of profits?

The Evidence

5. At trial, the Claimants called two witnesses and the Defendant called one.

Mrs. Sandra Bergquist testified in her witness statement that she is a

Chartered Accountant and the owner of Unit Number 21 of the Perla

- 4 -

Escondida Condominiums. She stated that at the time of purchase of their

respective condo units all proprietors including the Defendant Michael

Slusser agreed to pay maintenance fees of $300 per month for each unit. At

that time Mr. Slusser owned 5 of the 21 units. She said that these

maintenance fees would cover monthly costs of items such as cost of

security guard, cost of grounds keeper, cost of maintenance staff to control

the reasonable conduct and use of the common areas, general

maintenance including periodic painting and repair work on the exterior of

the buildings for normal wear and tear, paying cable bills and water bills for

each unit. The witness said that in August 2004 Mr. Slusser distributed an

Owners Quarterly Report which showed that all units has been changed to

individual water meters and owners were informed that they would have to

pay their own water and cable bills. She said that this action by Mr. Slusser

was arbitrary and unilateral and taken without any meeting or consultation

with the other owners. She also stated that there was never any security

service or grounds keeping staff provided by the Defendant’s Management

Company. In September 2004, Mr. Slusser unilaterally raised the

maintenance fees to US $165 per month despite the fact that the services

covenanted were terminated. As a consequence, a general meeting was

- 5 -

convened on or about the 14th November, 2005 of all the proprietors of

Perla Escondida and all those in attendance whether in person or by proxy.

The minutes of the meeting are attached to the witness statement. At that

meeting all the owners present voted to establish their own Home Owners

Association to manage the condominiums of Strata No. 22. Attorney

Michael Peyrefitte was invited and was present and advised the owners

how to proceed. The owners also voted to nominate three new

representatives of the Proprietors Strata Plan No. 22. The nominees were

Chuck Merritt, Billy Doerr and Sandra Bergquist. It was further agreed that

the maintenance fee for each unit would remain at $300 BZ or $150 US per

month. On November 4th, 2009 the Home Owners Association was duly

incorporated as the Proprietors of Strata Plan No. 22 with Don Richardson

and Sandra Bergquist as Directors. Since November 2005 to the present,

Mr. Slusser has defaulted in the payment of his maintenance fee for any of

his units. In 2010 he secured title to an additional four units bringing his

total to nine units. The total owed by Mr. Slusser for maintenance fees are

$139,800 for the period January 11th, 2005 to January 10th, 2012.

6. Mrs. Bergquist was cross examined by Ms. Pitts on behalf of the Defendant.

It was put to Mrs. Bergquist that there was no unanimous vote to create

- 6 -

the Home Owners Association at the meeting of proprietors on November

14th, 2005. The witness said yes and that all homeowners were notified

including Mr. Slusser and his wife Teresa Clegman. Mr. Slusser and his wife

did not attend. Every other homeowner was present or voted by proxy or

by telephone. It was clarified by the court that what the witness meant is

that Mr. Slusser and his wife did not attend the meeting, but all the other

members who participated in the meeting voted unanimously for the

establishment of the Home Owners Association. Mr. Slusser did not attend

and did not vote. Mrs. Bergquist was asked whether she registered any

amendment to the CC & Rs (by-laws) in Belmopan. She said she believed

they were registered by Michael Peyerfitte or Elson Kaseke. She did not

personally register the by-laws so she cannot say definitively that they were

registered, but she believes one of those attorneys did. It was put to her

that the company Strata Plan No. 22 was registered under the Companies

Act and not under the strata lot. She agreed and said as far as she knew

everything was registered under Strata Plan No. 22. Her personal title to

her unit would come from the Land Registry and it was issued by

Grantwell Ltd. (a company owned by the developer Jack Embry). She said

she searched the Land Registry in Belmopan personally prior to purchasing

- 7 -

her unit. In answer to the question whether she was aware that there were

restricted covenant conditions and restrictions on her unit at the time she

bought it, the witness said she didn’t ask about covenants. She was there to

find out if the title was clear or not. It was put to her that the CC & Rs were

registered at the time of her purchase and provided for the management

and administration of all the units. Mrs. Bergquist said that she got a copy

of the CC & Rs a couple months after she bought her unit and upon reading

them saw what the management was supposed to be providing to the

proprietors. Mr. Jack Embry, the developer who built the units, gave her a

copy. The witness was asked whether the CC & Rs made certain provisions

for its amendment. She agreed. Mrs. Berguist was asked if Article 12(5) of

the CC & Rs required that amendment be done by “an instrument approved

in writing by not less than 2/3 of the owners together with the Declarant

and/or Management Company”. She agreed and said that they did have 2/3

votes at the meeting since 17 of the 21 owners agreed. She was asked if she

was aware of the additional requirement that there also had to be an

agreement in writing by the Management Company as the Declarant after

the meeting. The witness said she knew of the requirement and said that

the Defendant refused to participate in the meeting. She agreed with

- 8 -

counsel’s suggestion that the owners did not get permission from Michael

Slusser to register the company, but she explained that they did not feel

they needed his authority since they had 2/3 votes and he had already

breached his own CC & Rs. It was put to the witness that she was aware

that the amendments sought could not be registered at the Land Registry,

so as a unit holder she sought to have a company registered under the

Companies Act to get around the provisions of the Strata Title Registration

Law. Mrs. Bergquist said that she was not trying to get around anything.

She simply wanted her property maintained in proper order. The

Management Company was not following their own CC & Rs.

7. The second witness for the Claimant was Mr. Anthony Lopez who said he

was the caretaker for Perla Escondida Condominiums and that he has been

so employed for and on behalf of the Home Owners Association

incorporated as Proprietors of Strata Plan No. 22 from January 17th, 2007

up to the present. He was not cross examined.

8. The sole witness for the Defence was the Defendant Michael Slusser.

Mr. Slusser gave his evidence via video conferencing as he was unable to

travel to Belize for the trial. He testified by two witness statements dated

- 9 -

August 2nd, 2013 and March 7th, 2014 respectively. Mr. Slusser stated that

he is a US Resident and property owner on Coconut Drive, San Pedro

Ambergris Caye. He said that there are legally registered and binding by-

laws of 10th October, 2003 and that under those by-laws the Defendant is

the only person that has a legal right to manage Perla Escondida

Condominiums.

He said that those by-laws were unanimously agreed upon by all owners at

that time and registered with the Lands Department. He alleges that the

Claimants have fabricated another set of by-laws and have presented them

to the court. Mr. Slusser points to Article 12(5) of the by-laws and

emphasizes the requirement of approval in writing and 2/3 owners votes.

He states that he is the Declarant and Management Company referred to in

those by-laws and that he has never agreed to any changes to the

registered by-laws. He said that he purchased his properties under the

terms of those same by-laws and never agreed to nor signed any

documents that would bind him to pay any sums to anybody. Mr. Slusser

also said that a small group of owners (including Mrs. Sandra Bergquist and

a few others) disagreed with the Management Company and disregarded

the registered by-laws and set out on their own to form their own company

- 10 -

with their own set of rules. They are attempting to force their will on all

other owners, without any legal basis. He also says that the new by-laws

produced by the Claimants have no validity over him and his properties. He

purchased his properties years before the Claimants produced these new

by-laws. He never agreed in any form to the Claimant’s by-laws. He also

asks the Claimant to produce a date as to when their by-laws were

fabricated and the instrument in writing wherein all owners unanimously

agreed, and produce the registration stamp and date of the Lands

Department where the instrument would have been registered. Mr. Slusser

states that he is the lawful owner of the names Perla Escondida and Perla

Escondida Condominiums as registered with the Corporations Department.

He claims that all new owners were given a copy of the by-laws since 25th

November, 2003, the date of the Contract of Sale and Management

Agreement by his Management Company, and that all those sales

agreements/contracts between new purchasers and the vendor Grantwell

Ltd., also known as Jack Embry, contain the following provision:

“Purchaser(s) agree by the signing of this Contract Agreement to abide by

all Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions of PERLA ESCONDIDA

- 11 -

CONDOMINIUMS, and will sign said CC & Rs and have on record that they

have read and agree with all the CC & Rs.”

Finally, Mr. Slusser states that he was given a copy of those CC & Rs by

Mr. Embry on or about July 2003 and that those by-laws have been

registered with the Government of Belize on October 10th, 2003. He also

mentions that on or about June 2003 he met one Ms. Welch, Head of the

Belize Lands Department, at the Lands Registry and had a conversation with

her, and that Ms. Welch assured him that those by-laws were registered

saying: “The registered by-laws are not set out exactly word for word as

they are in the Strata Law, but they contain all the elements of the Strata

law. They follow the law and therefore are legal and duly registered. I see

no problem with them.”

9. Mr. Slusser was cross examined by Mr. Musa, SC, on behalf of the

Claimants. He was asked who made the by-laws that he referred to in his

witness statement. He replied Jack Embry and that the name of the

institution that created the by-laws was Grantwell Ltd. He was asked

whether the by-laws and CC & Rs are the same thing and the witness said

yes. He also agreed with Learned Counsel’s suggestion that the document

- 12 -

tendered on his behalf in evidence was entitled Perla Escondida

Condominiums Ltd. and not Grantwell Ltd. Mr. Slusser also explained that,

“By Contract of Sale and Management Agreement dated 25th day of

November, 2003 between Grantwell Ltd. and Perla Escondida Ltd., Perla

Escondida became the Declarant as provided for in section 4 of the by-laws

or CCRs. It refers to its successors and assigns Grantwell Ltd. assigned Perla

Escondida as the Declarant and Management Company under that Contract

of Sale and Management Agreement of November 25th, 2003.”

It was put to Mr. Slusser that the CC & Rs document on which he is relying

is not registered. His answer was, “Okay. I understand what you are

saying”. It was also put to Mr. Slusser that when one looks at the title of

the property in the Lands Registry it is showing that that title to Strata Plan

No. 22 is registered in the name of the Proprietors of Strata Plan No. 22.

The witness was shown the registered title extracted from the Land

Registry on January 20th, 2014. Counsel read the extract to the witness as

follows: “11th February, 2003 Restriction: No dealings in this land unless by

order of the Court or Registrar”. And under Encumbrances it says,

“Registers in respect of strata lots have been opened; that no encumbrances

or restrictions are noted on the title”. After reading the extract to him, it

- 13 -

was put to Mr. Slusser again that the by-laws on which he is relying were

never registered. The witness replied that he understands what Counsel is

saying but as far as he knows the by-laws were registered. Counsel then

said the extract shows that the bylaws of his own client were also not

registered and on that basis, the only bylaws that can affect this case are

those bylaws that are set out in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule

to the strata law. Mr. Slusser disagreed. It was later put to him that in 2005

he owned 4 condos. He said 5. He agreed that he took over management of

the condos and proprietors like Don Richardson started paying

maintenance fees to him. He also agreed that he was charging $300 BZ per

month. He was asked if by late 2005 there was a lot of discontent with his

management of the condominium complex. He said he did not know. Many

suggestions were put to him that the complex was neglected and

abandoned, pool was not functional and the boat pier was in a state of

disrepair. He disagreed and said that he gave Jack Embry one million dollars

US for the properties and he would not let one million dollars in disrepair.

Mr. Slusser said that he never met with the proprietors to discuss their

dissatisfaction with his services as manager. He conceded that he did

receive emails complaining about construction defects, sewer gas smell,

- 14 -

building structure and he relayed the problems to Jack Embry who fixed

them. He also agreed that he has never paid the proprietors one cent since

they took over management of the complex in 2005. In his view, he still

owns the maintenance company and he sends out billing to the other

owners. It was put to him that in his fight with Jack Embry since 2003 he

has now extended that fight to the other proprietors and they are now

paying the brunt. Mr. Slusser said that is not true.

Upon being re-examined by Ms. Pitts, Mr. Slusser clarified that his position

is that he not only bought physical condominium units from Grantwell Ltd.

and Jack Embry, he also bought the rights under the CC & Rs. He said that

he never received any notice of the proprietors’ meeting in 2005 where the

by-laws were produced and he has never seen those by-laws.

Legal Submissions

10. Mr. Musa, SC, submits that the contention of the Defendant that there are

legally registered by-laws of 10th October, 2003 and that under those by-

laws the Defendant or his company is the only person with a legal right to

manage the Perla Escondida Condominiums, is devoid of any supporting

evidence. When Mr. Slusser was shown a copy of the Land Register report

- 15 -

of Plan No. 22 in which no restrictions or encumbrances were noted, his

response was hearsay; that he was told by a Ms. Welch at Land Registry in

Belmopan that his by-laws were registered. Mr. Musa, SC, states that the

simple fact is that no by-laws made by the corporation or by any proprietor

of Strata Plan No. 22 were ever registered as the law required in Section

15(5) of the Act. The only binding by-laws are therefore those in the First

and Second Schedule to the Act. Mr. Musa, SC, also submits that the

Defendant’s attempt to maintain management and control of the

Corporation by the device of an agreement between him and the builder

Jack Embry flies in the face of the doctrine of privity of contract. (Chitty on

Contracts Vol 1 28th ed at para. 19-003). Counsel then refers to the law

governing strata lots as set out in Chapter 9 of the Laws of Belize. He argues

that the law is based on the principle of democratic governance. No one

proprietor (even if he owns several lots) is allowed to become a corporation

sole with powers of control in perpetuity unless by a unanimous resolution

of all the proprietors who by virtue of Section 5 are a Body Corporate.

Mr. Musa, SC, also submits that by Clause 2 of the First Schedule to the Act

(the By-Laws), “Every corporation shall control, manage, and administer the

common property for the benefit of all proprietors”.

- 16 -

Clauses 4-12 of the First Schedule provide for the holding of general

meetings of the Corporation and Clauses 13-22 make provisions for the

election of an Executive Committee of not less than three members to

exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Corporation. Clause 10

of the First Schedule provides that one half of the persons entitled to vote

at any general meeting whether present or by proxy shall constitute a

quorum. Clause 24 provides that at any general meeting, a resolution by

the vote of the meeting shall be decided by a show of hands unless a poll is

demanded. There is no requirement for any unanimity to vote for a change

of management. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submits that at the

meeting of November 12th, 2005, there was clearly a quorum. The

appointment of a new Executive Committee to manage the affairs of the

Corporation, voted on by an overwhelming majority of proprietors, was

valid and effectual.

In conclusion, Mr. Musa, SC, submits that the Claimants have been

managing the Corporation since 2005 and that it is beyond dispute that the

Defendant has not paid any maintenance fees since he lost control of

management. Between November 2005 and October 2010 the Defendant

owed fees for five units. He later acquired four more units and now owes

- 17 -

for nine units. The Claimants are therefore entitled to judgment for the

amounts claimed together with interest and costs.

11. Ms. Pitts argues that the Defendant’s evidence shows that he first

purchased certain condominiums and management rights years before the

Claimants’ purported by-laws, under legal contract for property rights to

strata units land and exclusive management rights over all other condos.

The Defendant testified that he never got any invitation or notice to attend

any meeting in San Pedro in 2005 and he has not seen any by-laws from

that meeting. The Defendant maintains his rights to manage and so his

right to collect fees.

Ms. Pitts further argues that the purported meeting of 2005 (absent

evidence of notice to Defendant) could not abrogate or affect negatively his

property rights, neither as to his realty or personal contractual rights, and is

of no legal effect against him. She submits that to find otherwise would be

tantamount to wrongful deprivation of property which is unconstitutional,

as the Belize Constitution Section 5 guarantees and guards against wrongful

deprivation of property. She submits that the purported meeting of 2005

was at most an attempt to hijack the management rights and avoid

- 18 -

payment of fees and to act without any or any proper regard for the Strata

Law or the Defendant. Ms. Pitts argues that there was no evidence of

written notice of the meeting to the Defendant, nor was there any evidence

of minutes thereof. Most critically there is no evidence of any amendment

or document showing registration under the Strata Titles Registration Act

or Registered Land of any purported amendment or establishment of

Executive Committee by Claimants at all. She says there was unanimity of

ownership and decision making when Jack Embry/Grantwell Ltd. who was

the unanimous owner of all condominium units at the time that a contract

was entered into with the Defendant for exclusive management of the

units. This contract antedated the Claimants who subsequently purchased

condominium units and admitted signing an agreement to pay

maintenance fees under the pre-existing binding legal entitlement of the

Defendant and or his company Perla Escondida Ltd., as Assignee Successor

under Contract of Sales and Management Agreement of November 25th,

2003. She cites the Strata Registration Act in Section II(2) which states that

by-laws shall include by-laws set forth in the First Schedule which shall not

be varied except for unanimous resolution and that the by-laws set forth in

the Second Schedule may be amended or varied by the Corporation.

- 19 -

Ms. Pitts also cites Section 15 of the Strata Registration Act which states

that no amendment or variation of any bylaw shall have effect until the

relevant corporation has lodged with the Registrar a notification thereof in

such form as may be prescribed and until the Registrar notifies the

corporation that he has made reference thereto on the relevant registered

Strata Plan. She submits therefore that the Claimants are not entitled to

collect the fees they seek, that the Defendant and his company are the only

valid Management Company, and that it is the Claimants who owe fees to

the Defendant for services provided by him.

Ruling

12. I thank both Counsel for the legal submissions made on behalf of the

Claimants and the Defendant in this matter. It is clear to me from the

evidence that there is no set of by-laws that have been registered either by

the Claimant or by the Defendant as required by the Strata Registration Act

Section 15.

“15(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the control, management,

administration, use and enjoyment of the strata lots and the common

property contained in every registered strata plan shall be regulated by

by-laws.

- 20 -

(2) The by-laws shall include -

(a) the by-laws set forth in the First Schedule, which shall not be

amended or varied except by unanimous resolution;

(b) the by-laws set forth in the Second Schedule, which may be

amended or varied by the Corporation.

(3) Until by-laws are made by a Corporation in that behalf, the bylaws set

forth in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule shall, as and from the

registration of a strata plan, be in force for all purposes in relation to the

relevant parcel and the strata lots and common property therein.

(4) No by-law shall operate to prohibit or restrict the devolution of strata

lots or any dealing therewith or to destroy or modify any easement

implied or created by this Act.

(5) No amendment or variation of any by-law shall have effect until the

relevant Corporation has lodged with the Registrar a notification thereof

in such form as may be prescribed and until the Registrar notifies the

Corporation that he has made reference thereto on the relevant

registered strata plan.

(6) Every Corporation shall, on the application of a proprietor or any

person authorized in writing by him, make available for inspection the by-

laws for the time being in force.

(7) By-laws for the time being in force shall bind every Corporation and

the proprietors to the same extent as if such by-laws had respectively

been signed and sealed by such Corporation and each proprietor and

contained convenants on the part of such Corporation with each

proprietor and on the part of each proprietor with every other proprietor

and with such corporation to observe and perform all the provisions of the

by-laws.”

Section 15(3) clearly spells out what should occur in the meantime the

Corporation registers its own bylaws; that is, until that event occurs, then

the bylaws set forth in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule shall be

- 21 -

in force. There has been no evidence that the CC & Rs relied on by

Mr. Slusser were ever registered. There is also no evidence that the bylaws

produced by the Claimants were ever registered. As Mr. Musa, SC, rightly

submitted, the report of the Land Register shows that the Strata Plan No.

22 is blank, with no encumbrances, covenants or restrictions on the title. In

light of this, the only binding by-laws on the Strata Plan are therefore those

provided in the Act itself in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule.

Looking at the by-laws as expressed in the First Schedule under the rubric

General Meetings, Section 7, 8 , 9 and 10 set out the manner in which the

proprietors are to conduct their meetings.

“7. Every Corporation may, whenever it thinks fit and shall upon a

requisition in writing made by proprietors entitled to twenty-five per

centum of the total unit entitlement of the strata lots, convene an

extraordinary general meeting.

8. Seven days notice of every general meeting specifying the place, the

date and the hour of the meeting and, in case of special business, the

general nature of such business, shall be given to all proprietors and

registered first chargees who have notified their interest to the

Corporation, but accidental omission to give such notice to any proprietor

or to any registered first charge of non-receipt of such notice shall not

invalidate any proceedings at any such meeting.

9. All business shall be deemed special that is transacted at an annual or

extraordinary general meeting, with the exception of the consideration of

accounts.

- 22 -

10. Save as is in these by-laws otherwise provided, no business shall be

transacted at any general meeting unless a quorum of persons entitled to

vote is present at the time when the meeting proceeds to business. One

half of the persons entitled to vote present in person or by proxy shall

constitute a quorum.”

I note in particular that Section 8 provides expressly that accidental

omission to give notice to any proprietor shall not invalidate the

proceedings at any such meeting. I believe on a balance of probabilities

the evidence of Ms. Bergquist that Mr. Slusser was in fact given notice of

the meeting but he chose not to attend. Given the high state of

discontent of the other proprietors with Mr. Slusser’s management

services, (he reluctantly conceded in cross examination that he had

received emails of complaints from other owners on various issues such

as building defects, sewer gas smell, etc.) I find that it is more likely than

not that he and his wife refused to participate in that meeting. However,

even if there was accidental omission to give him notice, the section

provides that this failure would not invalidate the proceedings at that

meeting.

- 23 -

I also agree with Mr. Musa, SC, that the contract between

Jack Embry/Grantwell Ltd. and Michael Slusser/Perla Escondida does not

and cannot bind other proprietors under the doctrine of privity of

contract. That is trite law.

I do not agree with Ms. Pitts’ submission that unanimity was necessary

to change the management of the strata plan. Under the First Schedule

to the Strata Act, which is the only binding by-laws, Section 16 clearly

sets out the situations where unanimous resolutions are required and

those are for easements or restrictive covenants.

Looking at the Minutes of the Meeting of the proprietors dated

November 12th, 2005 as exhibited to the witness statement of Sandra

Bergquist, I find that there was quorum of voters as required by Section

10.

“10. Save as is in these by-laws otherwise provided, no business

shall be transacted at any general meeting unless a quorum of

persons entitled to vote is present at the time when the meeting

proceeds to business. One half of the persons entitled to vote

present in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum.”

- 24 -

The Minutes reflect that there were 22 owners of condominiums at that

time and 17 voted (personally or by proxy). I find that the resolutions

passed at that meeting were valid and in keeping with the requirements

of the by-laws in the First Schedule and Second Schedule of the Strata

Titles Registration Act Chapter 196 of the Laws of Belize.

I therefore find in favor of the Claimants on this claim in the total sum of

$143,025 (including Legal Practitioner’s fixed costs of $3,000) plus

interest from the due date at 12% per annum. The Defendant’s

counterclaim is struck out.

Dated this 22nd day of December, 2014

__________________ Michelle Arana Supreme Court Judge